Danish Sonographers' Experiences of the Introduction of "Moderate Risk" in Prenatal Screening for Down Syndrome

Overview

Journal J Pregnancy

Publisher Wiley

Specialty Gynecology & Obstetrics

Date 2018 Nov 8

PMID 30402287

Authors

Anne Moller

Ida Vogel

Olav Bjorn Petersen

Stina Lou

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: The aim of the study was to determine sonographers' experiences with the introduction of an offer of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) to a new moderate-risk (MR) group at the combined first-trimester prenatal screening (cFTS).

Study Design: A qualitative approach consisting of seven semistructured interviews with five sonographers (midwives and nurses). Data was analyzed using thematic analysis.

Main Outcome Measures: Sonographers' perception of offering NIPT to women in MR.

Results: The sonographers understood NIPT as a positive development in prenatal screening due to a safe procedure and high detection rates for trisomies 13, 18, and 21. Prior to the introduction of MR, the sonographers were concerned about inducing worry in pregnant women in this new risk group. However, the pregnant women responded very positively, which the sonographers attributed to several factors such as the women's overall reason for participating in prenatal screening, the simplicity of the NIPT procedure, and the communicative strategies used by the sonographers. The strategies included all sonographers using the same words and explanations, emphasizing that statistics were in the women's favor, initiating the presentation of MR with a positive message, and downplaying the MR category.

Conclusion: Sonographers' communicative strategies succeeded in limiting worry in pregnant women in MR. As such, the findings are valuable for health professionals, who are responsible for communicating about prenatal screening results and diagnostic options.

References

Wulff C, Gerds T, Rode L, Ekelund C, Petersen O, Tabor A . Risk of fetal loss associated with invasive testing following combined first-trimester screening for Down syndrome: a national cohort of 147,987 singleton pregnancies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 47(1):38-44. DOI: 10.1002/uog.15820. View

Garcia E, Timmermans D, van Leeuwen E . Rethinking autonomy in the context of prenatal screening decision-making. Prenat Diagn. 2008; 28(2):115-20. DOI: 10.1002/pd.1920. View

Lou S, Nielsen C, Hvidman L, Petersen O, Risor M . Coping with worry while waiting for diagnostic results: a qualitative study of the experiences of pregnant couples following a high-risk prenatal screening result. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016; 16(1):321. PMC: 5073971. DOI: 10.1186/s12884-016-1114-6. View

Carroll F, Owen-Smith A, Shaw A, Montgomery A . A qualitative investigation of the decision-making process of couples considering prenatal screening for Down syndrome. Prenat Diagn. 2012; 32(1):57-63. DOI: 10.1002/pd.2901. View

Hertig S, Cavalli S, Burton-Jeangros C, Elger B . 'Doctor, what would you do in my position?' Health professionals and the decision-making process in pregnancy monitoring. J Med Ethics. 2013; 40(5):310-4. DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2012-100887. View

Heyman B, Hundt G, Sandall J, Spencer K, Williams C, Grellier R . On being at higher risk: a qualitative study of prenatal screening for chromosomal anomalies. Soc Sci Med. 2005; 62(10):2360-72. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.10.018. View

Musci T, Fairbrother G, Batey A, Bruursema J, Struble C, Song K . Non-invasive prenatal testing with cell-free DNA: US physician attitudes toward implementation in clinical practice. Prenat Diagn. 2013; 33(5):424-8. DOI: 10.1002/pd.4091. View

Schwennesen N, Koch L . Representing and intervening: 'doing' good care in first trimester prenatal knowledge production and decision-making. Sociol Health Illn. 2012; 34(2):283-98. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9566.2011.01414.x. View

Malterud K, Siersma V, Guassora A . Sample Size in Qualitative Interview Studies: Guided by Information Power. Qual Health Res. 2015; 26(13):1753-1760. DOI: 10.1177/1049732315617444. View

10.

ODoherty K, Suthers G . Risky communication: pitfalls in counseling about risk, and how to avoid them. J Genet Couns. 2007; 16(4):409-17. DOI: 10.1007/s10897-006-9077-9. View

11.

Petersen O, Vogel I, Ekelund C, Hyett J, Tabor A . Potential diagnostic consequences of applying non-invasive prenatal testing: population-based study from a country with existing first-trimester screening. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 43(3):265-71. DOI: 10.1002/uog.13270. View

12.

Bangsgaard L, Tabor A . Do pregnant women and their partners make an informed choice about first trimester risk assessment for Down syndrome, and are they satisfied with the choice?. Prenat Diagn. 2012; 33(2):146-52. DOI: 10.1002/pd.4026. View

13.

Ekelund C, Jorgensen F, Petersen O, Sundberg K, Tabor A . Impact of a new national screening policy for Down's syndrome in Denmark: population based cohort study. BMJ. 2008; 337:a2547. PMC: 2590884. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.a2547. View

14.

Lou S, Frumer M, Schlutter M, Petersen O, Vogel I, Nielsen C . Experiences and expectations in the first trimester of pregnancy: a qualitative study. Health Expect. 2017; 20(6):1320-1329. PMC: 5689234. DOI: 10.1111/hex.12572. View

15.

Lou S, Mikkelsen L, Hvidman L, Petersen O, Nielsen C . Does screening for Down's syndrome cause anxiety in pregnant women? A systematic review. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2014; 94(1):15-27. DOI: 10.1111/aogs.12482. View

16.

Bennett J, Chitty L, Lewis C . Non-invasive Prenatal Diagnosis for BRCA Mutations - a Qualitative Pilot Study of Health Professionals' Views. J Genet Couns. 2015; 25(1):198-207. DOI: 10.1007/s10897-015-9858-0. View

17.

Werner-Lin A, McCoyd J, Bernhardt B . Balancing Genetics (Science) and Counseling (Art) in Prenatal Chromosomal Microarray Testing. J Genet Couns. 2016; 25(5):855-67. DOI: 10.1007/s10897-016-9966-5. View